"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."

In the 30-page paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein argues the best government response to "conspiracy theories" is "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups."

Sunstein defined a conspiracy theory as "an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."

Some "conspiracy theories" recommended for ban by Sunstein include:

"The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud."

"The view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."

"The 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile."

"The Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy."

"That Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by federal agents."

"The moon landing was staged and never actually occurred."

Sunstein allowed that "some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true."

Sunstein cited as a primary example of "absurd" and "hateful" remarks, reports by "right-wing websites" alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist William Ayers.

Kommissar Sunstein actually argues that thought and speech control promotes freedom of speech (does he smoke crack too?). Funny, because he even admits that "some conspiracy theories ... have turned out to be true."

So why does he want the government to engage in speech and thought control? Obviously, he believes the government should be able to get away with whatever the hell they want!

Sunstein's article, published in the Journal of Political Philosphy in 2008 and recently uncovered by blogger Marc Estrin, states that "our primary claim is that conspiracy theories typically stem not from irrationality or mental illness of any kind but from a 'crippled epistemology,' in the form of a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational sources."

Sunstein "wants to hold blogs and web hosting services accountable for the remarks of commenters on websites while altering libel laws to make it easier to sue for spreading 'rumors,'" wrote Ed Lasky at American Thinker.

What a twisted tyrant! Cass Sunstein's no intellect, he belongs in a mental institution! I mean, he obviously has an unhealthy obsession with power.

[W]e suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity. (Page 219.)

Put into English, what Sunstein is proposing is government infiltration of groups opposing prevailing policy. Palestinian Liberation? 9/11 Truth? Anti-nuclear power? Stop the wars? End the Fed? Support Nader? Eat the Rich?

It's easy to destroy groups with "cognitive diversity." You just take up meeting time with arguments to the point where people don't come back. You make protest signs which alienate 90% of colleagues. You demand revolutionary violence from pacifist groups.

We expect such tactics from undercover cops, or FBI. There the agents are called "provocateurs" -- even if only "cognitive." One learns to smell or deal with them in a group, or recognize trolling online. But even suspicion or partial exposure can “sow uncertainty and distrust within conspiratorial groups [now conflated with conspiracy theory discussion groups] and among their members,” and “raise the costs of organization and communication” -- which Sunstein applauds as "desirable." "[N]ew recruits will be suspect and participants in the group’s virtual networks will doubt each other’s bona fides." (p.225).

And are we now expected to applaud such tactics frankly proposed in a scholarly journal by a high-level presidential advisor?

Many people on both the right and the left love to attack conspiracy theorists, but I don't understand why. Does it infringe upon their inalienable rights if someone believes NASA never landed on the moon? Does it threaten their own beliefs by causing doubt? Is it scary?

They don't actually trust the government, do they?

If so, they're suckers. But who cares if some people believe humanoid lizard-men appear in holographic form while secretly controlling the world? Just laugh at them! They do not hurt you. But they do hurt the government, and that's why the tyrant Sunstein supports thought and speech control.

Heaven forbid they keep getting caught in their evil acts. Only the "official" story is allowed!

Leave it to conspiracy theorist's to call an accountability of free speech a conspiracy.

There's no such thing as free speech in America. Free speech has always had a price tag, it's called accountability.

theCL

There's no such thing as free speech ...

That's simply non-sensical.

JustAnotherAmerican

So you have to be held "accountable" for having an opinion, too? And just because you say "there's no such thing as free speech" doesn't mean it's true. I'm not saying yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Having an opinion is not the same thing.

We are slowly and inexorably moving closer and closer to Orwell's "1984"... Just a few years late, that's all.

It is ironic that Sunstein emanates from the same Hyde Park intellectual neighborhood as the (Neo)conmen who truly did conspire to cause the USA to wage an illegal, shameful, and ongoing pre-emptive war on Iraq. If Sunstein considers mere suspicion of politicians or authorities to indicate a "crippled epistemology" then he should just cut to the chase, admit that the Founders were idiots and openly declare himself an opponent of the US Constitution. As if it is even necessary to declare it...the main purpose of the document is protect people from exactly the those machinations of men in government which Sunstein at once assumes cannot happen, and admits has happened.

As for accountability, the 9/11 Truthers, as represented by David Ray Griffin are truly accountable. They tell you exactly why they believe what they believe, they do not attempt to merely insult you until you obey or agree with them, they encourage investigation and debate, and they admit when they are wrong. Meanwhile, I defy Beck, Sunstein or any other aspiring Quisling to defuse the myriad just and well-founded suspicions about 9/11 the old fashioned way: by encouraging open, honest, rigorous investigations that are not designed to serve the purposes of anything besides revelation of the complete and unfiltered truth. They can start and have a big, early success by telling us how WTC7 fell down, and why? They can explain either how you can prep a building for controlled demolition in one afternoon (while it is filled with smoke), or why it collapsed on itself due to minor fires on two floors. Structural design or manufacturing weaknesses? No problem! Just investigate them rather than destroying the crime scene! Or, they can show us verifiable debris (landing gear, fuel pumps, large pieces of engines...) from the plane alleged to have hit the Pentagon. Video tape from the other 81 video cameras recording that area at the time would be nice too. Real investigations, such as the one that investigated the Challenger disaster, are obvious by the way the participants really want to get at the truth. The 9/11 investigation is only notable for it's efforts to conceal it.

As it is, powerful interests profit from wars and those powerful interests must be tempted to mislead the American people into fighting wars for any mixture of patriotic and non-patriotic reasons limited only by their imaginations and by their ability to mislead us. To deny that the flow of hundreds of billions of dollars through our defense industries may not tempt powerful people to twist intelligence to fit a foregone conclusion or policy objective is to defy the prescience and sincerity of Dwight Eisenhower, the recent past history of the Iraq War, and every moral, religious and intellectual obligation that citizens share in our country. If it was not our obligation to have exactly those suspicions that Sunstein seems to fear so much, then how else does one explain either Eisenhower's warning, or George Washington's farewell address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington's_Farewell_Address ?

If the press wants to earn the "accountability" that foomanchoo (above) seems to ascribe to our mainstream media, then they must do the exact opposite of what Sunstein desires - which is unquestioning acceptance of any myth drafted by someone like Philip Zelikow. They must question the government when it beats the drums for war. It took decades for the Gulf of Tonkin incident to be revealed and widely appreciated for the Big Lie that it was. That lie killed 58,000 US citizens and a couple million Vietnamese. (How can any lie be worth those lives? ...Sunstein...?) When the USA reverts to being a country in which military men, politicians, journalists and academics all act collectively and immediately to prevent, publicize and oppose such lies from the moment of their inception or recognition, then and only then will it be safe for us to take suggestions such as those made by Sunstein casually and only then as the ravings of a morally-challenged person who has spent too much time among academics and too little with the cannon-fodder and their familes.

Lies kill. Sunstein wants to protect such lies as the Tonkin Incident and 9/11 from the suspicions of journalists and citizens. I say Damn him and the intellectual cesspool that bred him and his Neocon brethren. And shame on the President for inviting such a person to a place named after George Washington. Every additional person like Sunstein who shows up in Washington D.C. makes it easier and easier to believe that persons who are articulate for peace, like JFK, MLK and even pat Tillman... end up dead merely because they oppose the war du jour and will lead others in such opposition.

I was glad I stumbled across this when I was looking for a link to the actual paper Sunstein wrote on conspiracy theories. I am terrified of this administration's stance on the first amendment and some days can't tell if I'm still in America or am now in Venezuela.

Obama's speech at Hampton University this weekend absolutely sent chills down my spine!